I'm sure he has been caught cheating. He makes his money as a showman. Psychic abilities are anomolous and not easy to reproduce on cue. That doesn't change the fact that most performances by Uri have never been debunked. Any claim to say that Uri is debunked is very inaccurate. James Randi has spent a huge amount of time and money trying to debunk Uri, and only produced a handful of times that he was caught cheating. I'd say Randi's fail rate is very high.

Science demands reproducibility of results. Randi should be able to debunk Uri every time, but can't. He should be able to set forth a set of guidelines or principles showing how Uri can be debunked .. every time, but can't. Randi isn't doing science, he's doing comedy. Skeptic theories about how Uri tricked the SRI team are comedy gold.

Kevin Kane wrote:I'm sure he has been caught cheating. He makes his money as a showman. Psychic abilities are anomolous and not easy to reproduce on cue. That doesn't change the fact that most performances by Uri have never been debunked. Any claim to say that Uri is debunked is very inaccurate. James Randi has spent a huge amount of time and money trying to debunk Uri, and only produced a handful of times that he was caught cheating. I'd say Randi's fail rate is very high.

Kevin Kane wrote:I'm sure he has been caught cheating. He makes his money as a showman. Psychic abilities are anomolous and not easy to reproduce on cue. That doesn't change the fact that most performances by Uri have never been debunked. Any claim to say that Uri is debunked is very inaccurate. James Randi has spent a huge amount of time and money trying to debunk Uri, and only produced a handful of times that he was caught cheating. I'd say Randi's fail rate is very high.

I've seen people use ''real paranormal magic'' , and then later they pretended to use real magic, showing how fake they were. Now that's heavy mind games.

Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.

highflyertoo wrote:I've seen people use ''real paranormal magic'' , and then later they pretended to use real magic, showing how fake they were. Now that's heavy mind games.

Uri has never changed his story. How many times has Randi changed his? He used to say Uri had 11 (if I recall, but it was more) basic tricks. Later, that was reduced to 5. It's possible Randi has a well founded reason for changing his statements, but probably he's just bullshitting.

Based on the claims made of nearly everyone who cites an instance of the paranormal, indicates that the phenomena is anomalistic. Anomoly, by definition, falls outside the scope of the principles of science. It's not reproducable or measurable in any scientific manner. It doesn't mean it doesn't occur, it just doesn't occur like science would want it to.

And we know Uri is faking it sometimes. He has to be. But is he faking it all the time? Is he faking most of the time, or least of the time?

If you wish to believe he's faking it all the time, science does not validate such an opinion.

highflyertoo wrote:I've seen people use ''real paranormal magic'' , and then later they pretended to use real magic, showing how fake they were. Now that's heavy mind games.

Uri has never changed his story. How many times has Randi changed his? He used to say Uri had 11 (if I recall, but it was more) basic tricks. Later, that was reduced to 5. It's possible Randi has a well founded reason for changing his statements, but probably he's just bullshitting.

Based on the claims made of nearly everyone who cites an instance of the paranormal, indicates that the phenomena is anomalistic. Anomoly, by definition, falls outside the scope of the principles of science. It's not reproducable or measurable in any scientific manner. It doesn't mean it doesn't occur, it just doesn't occur like science would want it to.

And we know Uri is faking it sometimes. He has to be. But is he faking it all the time? Is he faking most of the time, or least of the time?

If you wish to believe he's faking it all the time, science does not validate such an opinion.

He most certainly has changed his story!!! He used to claim to be a psychic. He now claims to be a "mystifyer," whateverthehell that is. I've also mentioned this before in this forum, Uri was resently presented an award for magicians and he graciously accepted it. Doesn't sound like a psychic to me. Finally, you're wrong. If he had psychic abilities, he would only have to have shown those abilites a relatively few number of times for him to be rich and famous beyond his wildest abilities. Instead, he resorts to simple magic tricks. Sorry, Uri is a great, great magician. We can move this to another discussion if Uri wants to be discussed in further detail.

Uri debunkers such as Randi have not provided proof that Uri is faking it all the time, aka, non-scientific results. Randi has attempted to replicate Uri's results .. poorly. Randi's imitative tricks are easy to spot while Uri's are not **. If this was a competition between stage magicians, clearly Uri would be the better magician by far. But it hasn't been proven that he is only a stage magician. Despite great efforts by skeptics to prove he is, Uri has only been shown to use stage craft some of the time.

Skeptics have failed to provide a method of effectively debunking Uri (and his like), all the time. And the reason why, is because skeptics such as Randi were never using science in the first place.

Kevin Kane wrote:Uri debunkers such as Randi have not provided proof that Uri is faking it all the time, aka, non-scientific results. Randi has attempted to replicate Uri's results .. poorly. Randi's imitative tricks are easy to spot while Uri's are not **. If this was a competition between stage magicians, clearly Uri would be the better magician by far. But it hasn't been proven that he is only a stage magician. Despite great efforts by skeptics to prove he is, Uri has only been shown to use stage craft some of the time.

Skeptics have failed to provide a method of effectively debunking Uri (and his like), all the time. And the reason why, is because skeptics such as Randi were never using science in the first place.

Uri has been debunked so many times it's ridiculous. His thumb-trick compass, his water in jars, and his spoon bending all have been shown on camera as fraudulent. He even went on Phenomonen and performed a very simple mathematic trick that even I didn't do when performing because I thought it was too obvious.Sooooo, let me ask this one more time. Please provide evidence of something Uri has done that can't be debunked. You didn't answer me before and I'm pretty confident you won't be able to this time either.WagP.S. I can understand your frustration with Randi, and I'm sorry you don't like him, but please, don't take it out on me. Just show us some evidence about how genuine Uri is. We skeptics don't really ask for much...

I'm not answering because skeptics ignore stuff more than I do. Like, logic.

If someone wanted to become a famous magician, why would they choose a trick like spoon-bending? Why not choose something impressive like turning a rabbit inside out so it's skeleton was on the outside? Something like Blaine or Copperfield would do. Maybe Uri didn't choose spoon-bending .. it chose him.

Kevin Kane wrote:I'm not answering because skeptics ignore stuff more than I do. Like, logic.

If someone wanted to become a famous magician, why would they choose a trick like spoon-bending? Why not choose something impressive like turning a rabbit inside out so it's skeleton was on the outside? Something like Blaine or Copperfield would do. Maybe Uri didn't choose spoon-bending .. it chose him.

Or, your not answering because you know there isn't one.And second--Logic...like Uri Geller does magic tricks to try to fool people but that doesn't mean he doesn't have real psychic abilities. Yes, yes, yes. That's logical. Or not.

Doubts have been raised .. as that's what skeptics do .. raise doubts without evidence. From Wiki:

Marks and Kammann found evidence that while at SRI Geller was allowed to peek through a hole in the laboratory wall separating Geller from the drawings he was being invited to reproduce. The drawings he was asked to reproduce were placed on a wall opposite the peep hole which the investigators Targ and Puthoff had stuffed with cotton gauze. In addition to this error, the investigators had also allowed Geller access to a two-way intercom enabling Geller to listen to the investigators' conversation during the time when they were choosing and/or displaying the target drawings. These basic errors indicate the high importance of ensuring that psychologists, magicians or other people with an in-depth knowledge of perception, who are trained in methods for blocking sensory cues, be present during the testing of psychics.

Since Marks and Kammann were not present, nor does the video evidence support their claims .. what .. was .. the .. evidence .. Marks & Kammann .. alledgely ... found?

We don't know because their work was so unimportant, it's essentially disappeared. But we do have a conclusive quote from M&K:

"While we cannot with our data refute the Stanford Research Institute experiments, we question whether it is credible that Geller uses normal sensory-motor means outside the laboratory but switches to paranormal means inside it.”

Kevin Kane wrote:I'm not answering because skeptics ignore stuff more than I do. Like, logic.

If someone wanted to become a famous magician, why would they choose a trick like spoon-bending? Why not choose something impressive like turning a rabbit inside out so it's skeleton was on the outside? Something like Blaine or Copperfield would do. Maybe Uri didn't choose spoon-bending .. it chose him.

It's called "hand magic" or "close magic" and is a separate discipline to "stage magic". Generally a professional magician can do both but some excel in a particular field due to the limitations of "practice time". Some guitarists are lead guitarists. Some guitarists are rythym guitarists for the same reason.

Do you know why skeptics make lousy scientists? Because many of them are stage magicians and hypnotists. A practice that involves deception. Scientists search for truth. Skeptics practice to deceive.

That's why Puthoff and Targ didn't want Ray Hyman and Persi Diaconis observing the official tests. Because they were both masterful manipulators, con-artists who could pollute the experiments, as they currently pollute all science.

Kevin Kane wrote:I'm not answering because skeptics ignore stuff more than I do. Like, logic.

no.. you dont even have logic, since you are a believe, you are not rational and show a obvious lack of inteligenceyou want people to accept URI fooling a couple of scientists tha believe in Parapsychology to be admited as truewhen evidence tells you that he has faked and failed in some other tests

you already admited that Uri has cheateddont you get it?thats itGAME OVER

he cheateda psychic shouldnt cheat, why would he?oh wait.. he isnt a psychic anymorehe is a MYSTIFIER

For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)